Viktor Dukhovni <ietf-d...@dukhovni.org> writes: >I am tacitly assuming that the implementation community might be somewhat >more pragmatic than the WG, and be willing to improve the behaviour of the >current extension, or perhaps the "silent majority" of the WG would in fact >be willing be more pragmatic on resumption, but haven't chosen to engage in >this thread, and we could ideally even reach some language in an update that >recommends more liberal settings in general, with punishment set aside only >for the faithful who believe they're sure to never stray, in case they do.
It really depends on what the best way forward is for getting it working. The problem with adding even more conditions to the existing ones for the two PSK extensions (and I'll ask again, can anyone explain why a single function is split across two extensions?) is that "Errata exist" on the RFC's IETF page is really "Errata exist in the bottom of a locked filing cabinet stuck in a disused lavatory with a sign on the door saying 'Beware of the Leopard'", while having a new standards-track RFC with "Updated by RFC xxxx" added to RFC 8446 means it'll actually get noticed and used. Peter. _______________________________________________ TLS mailing list TLS@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tls
